Notes: September-October 1916

;зз2
LENIN COLLECTION

with Clifford Allen, proving the impossibility of the Independent Labour Party's further remaining within the ranks of the chauvinist Labour Party. "We must break with the idlers who sold us" — he writes in the second letter. In the following no. 52 of "Labour Leader" two letters from readers, members of the ILP, supporting Russell Williams were published.

5 In the article "Disputes on Convening the International Socialist Bureau (letter from England)," in no. 51 (438) of "Nashe slovo" of March 1, 1916, Ornatsky (G. V. Chicherin) writes: "as for the British Socialist Party proper, I am for a split immediately, because at present, apart from its Scottish organization, only the actually leading chauvinist clique plays any role in the English movement, while the entire so-called 'party,' its decorative central committees, even its conferences with their resolutions, interesting no one but a handful of adepts, all this in itself has absolutely no significance whatsoever and, on the contrary, all this has a very palpable indirect significance as a decorative pedestal for the chauvinist clique, as the creation for it of a showy organizational basis," etc.

6 On the polemic between F. R-n (F. Rothstein) and Ornatsky (G. V. Chicherin) in "Nashe slovo" see F. R-n's article "English Socialism and War" (no. 259 of December 7, 1915) and Orn.'s articles "The Denunciation of 'Justice,' organ of s.d." (no. 5 (393) of January 7, 1916). "The Case of Comrade Petrov and the Movement in Scotland" (no. 44 (431) of February 22, 1916).

"Communist" — a collection published in 1915 by the editorial board of the Central Organ "Socialdemokrat" jointly with Yu. Pyatakov and E. B. Bosh (P. and N. Kievsky). Only one double issue was published in total. For more details see Lenin's Works vol. XIX, pp. 479–480, note 160.

7 At the congress of the French Socialist Party (December 26–29, 1915) A. Bourderons accused the Central Committee of the party and the parliamentary faction of opportunism (forgetting the decisions of the Stuttgart, Basel, and other congresses of the International, voting for military credits, etc.) and proposed that the congress censure the Central Committee of the party and the parliamentary faction. A. Bourderons's resolution was rejected by the congress by a majority of 2736 against 76 votes.

---

# LOST IN THE WOODS

[September–October 1916. Zurich.]

In no. 1 of the Bundist "Bulletin" (September 1916) in a letter from a Bundist from Petersburg of 26.11.1916 we read:1

"The difficulty of adopting the formula of defense for us is greatly aggravated by the fact that in any case we cannot remain silent on the Polish question, as our Russian comrades are doing for now." (Let us not forget that the "comrades" of this gentleman are Potresov and Co.) "And the circumstance that even the defenders of defense in our midst do not wish to apply the formula 'without annexations' in relation to Russia, in the eyes of those psychologically rejecting defense at present, is a strong argument against defense, since they ask with irony: what then are you defending? And the idea of Polish independence enjoys recognition from the upper echelons." (Unclear which ones.)

When we in a resolution of 1915 declared that the Bund is dominated by German-loving chauvinism, Messrs. Kosovsky and Co. were able to answer only with abuse.2 Now in their very own organ their own party colleague confirms our statement! For if the Bundist "defenders of defense" do not wish to apply the formula "without annexations" "in relation to Russia" (note that not a word about Germany!), how does this differ in substance from German-loving chauvinism?

If the Bundists wanted and knew how to think, they would see that they are lost in the question of annexations. There is one way out of wanderings and confusion: to adopt our program, clarified as far back as 1913. Namely: in order to conduct a sensible and honest policy of rejecting annexations, socialists and democrats of oppressed nations must in all their propaganda and agitation declare to be scoundrels those socialists of oppressing nations (whether Great Russians or Germans, Poles in relation to Ukrainians, etc.), who do not stand consistently and unconditionally for the freedom of secession of nations oppressed or forcibly retained by their own nation.

If the Bundists do not accept and will not accept this conclusion, it is only from unwillingness to quarrel with the Potresovs in Russia, the Leptes, the Südekums and even the Ledebours (he is not for the freedom of secession of Alsace-Lorraine) in Germany, with the nationalists, or rather social-chauvinists of Poland, etc.

A respectable [and understandable] reason, one must say!

1 The "Bulletin of the Foreign Committee of the Bund" was a continuation of the "Information Sheet of the Foreign Organization of the Bund"; a total of 2 issues were published (in September and December 1916). The "Letter from Russia" cited here, which appeared unsigned in no. 1 of the "Bulletin," is analyzed in more detail by Lenin in the article "The Tskheidze Faction and Its Role" (Lenin's Works vol. XIX, pp. 240–241).

2 Lenin has in mind the resolution on relations to other parties and groups, adopted by the conference of foreign sections of the Bolsheviks (February 27–March 4, 1915). The author of this resolution was Lenin (Works vol. XVIII, p. 128).